Christopher Booker on BBC and The Royal Society bias, ClimateGate, The Met cold winter forecast and 2010 hottest year ever:
Horizon’s “Science Under Attack” turned out to be yet another laborious bid by the BBC to defend the global warming orthodoxy…… Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous…… Although Sir Paul presented himself as the champion of objective science, he frequently showed that, for all his expertise in cell biology, he knows little about climate.
The fact that someone is an expert in one particular field – even if he is President of the Royal Society – gives him little more authority to pronounce on issues with which he is unfamiliar than a man holding forth in a pub……. the BBC has been turned, in Peter Sissons’ words, into a mere “propaganda machine”……. Comparing the actual data…… shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade……
h/t to Amino Acids in Meteorites
Couple of thoughts:
Firstly, Delingpole was thrown to the wolves – he is a wordsmith, and should have known better against someone skilled in public presentations.
The BBC was up top its old tricks the other day when our (thankfully..!) one-and-only Green Party MP – Caroline Lucas, was given free reign on BBC Breakfast to expound her views on ‘wartime-style’ rationing – mentioning ‘climate change’ of course several times. Not a word from the news anchors.
Finally – what has happened to Chris Booker..?? His latest mugshots alongside his name in his blogs seem to have aged him about twenty years since the previous version – with a full head of dark hair – has battling the climate ‘warmists’ taken its toll..??
I saw this programme. The only thing it changed was my opinion of the Royal Society and the Nobel Prize committee.
Jordan says:
January 30, 2011 at 8:09 am
“Is the BBC so hopelessly out of touch? Did the BBC fail to notice the Lisbon meeting this week and ended up shaming itself with the Horizon programme? Or was this a deliberate attempt by the BBC to undermine the Lisbon Workshop?
Enquiring minds would like to know.”
The only person that I can find, who says anything about the Lisbon Conference is Judith Curry. I can’t find anything significant that is going to change anything coming from this conference. If only one person is saying something about this conference, it doesn’t seem that it is going to have any effect at all.
Regarding the BBC Horizon program, I can’t really judge anything, because no one in the US gets to see it. From what I have read, Climate Science isn’t the only scientific controversy that it deals with.
[snip. Insulting and mischarachterising WUWT on your blog is your business. But don’t expect to get free advertising here. ~dbs, mod.]
Now that the BBC, the Royal Society, and Sir Paul have prostituted themselves all over the international airwaves, I hope that we have reached the bottom of the barrel. Let’s review. The BBC planned the broadcast, invited the guests that Sir Paul interviewed, and edited the tape for broadcast. They strove for a Gotcha moment against Delingpole but produced only his remark that Sir Paul’s ridiculous analogy was a ridiculous analogy. They had Sir Paul second an interviewee who claimed that humans contribute 7/8 of all CO2 going into the atmosphere. The Royal Society is dragged along because Sir Paul is the head of it. What will their next act be? I can imagine the Royal Society and all the staff of the BBC doing the “Camelot” number from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” Short of that, they can rest on their laurels for quite some time.
You could have just removed the link and paragraph from my comment if you considered it not suited for you blog.
Now my argument was that you posted an excerpt from a column where one of the arguments is “Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.”. Which can be paraphrased as it’s snowing outside so global warming is not happening… Cold spells can happen, even when the planet is warming up. I’ve made a video on the details:
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc ]
Now the point I make in that video is that the current weather we’ve seen is caused by a NAO. Which might or might not be linked to global warming as a trigger, they are still investigating how much a contribution that has. However more snowfall is consistent with global warming as warm air can hold more moisture. And when it hits cold air it then dumps that moisture as snow.
Also Booker who wrote the column is again someone who also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer. And even has been critical on the theory of evolution saying “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.
Suffice to say this is not someone that helps your argument.
vigilantfish says: January 29, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Is this comment actually being published in the paper (as opposed to one of the Telegraph’s blogs)? I certainly hope so.
———————————————————————
Yes is was (29th January 2011) – Earth section, with a lively discussion – 930 responses mostly scathing of BBC and Paul Nurse. BTW I notice that Nurse has commented on this blog – telling Anthony not to cherry-pick!
Ho Ho – a bit rich doncha think?
Douglas
Collin Maessen,
“However more snowfall is consistent with global warming as warm air can hold more moisture. And when it hits cold air it then dumps that moisture as snow.”
Well, Collin, is there anything that ISN’T consistent with global warming?
Yes Collin Maessen the problem with your video is that it is now OFFICIAL that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for the past 12 years. So you cannot blame cold weather, ice and snow on global warming now, can you?
OHD
I said it is consistent with global warming, as we do see the phenomenon that we get more snow in winter in warm years (some even predicted it before the winter of 2009/2010).
This doesn’t mean that the current amount of snow wouldn’t be possible without global warming. But it does provide evidence either that the planet isn’t warming. In the video I posted you can find all the details (I could post the link to my script on my website, but I have the suspicion they won’t appreciate it here).
Now to answer your question “is there anything that ISN’T consistent with global warming”:
One of this would be that the arctic wouldn’t be experiencing the current melting. And if it wasn’t anthropogenic we wouldn’t be seeing the changes in the infrared absorption patterns in the atmosphere we are currently seeing.
And these are just two examples.
Collin Maessen says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
However more snowfall is consistent with global warming as warm air can hold more moisture. And when it hits cold air it then dumps that moisture as snow.
Another we have have it all ways post.
The record cold Dec in the UK was cold and the snow actually resulted in a drier than average Dec according to the MET, several water companies are warning of water shortages in the summer if this level of dry winter continues.
Please describe the conditions that would disprove the AGW theory or does everything point to AGW.
Complaint just sent to the BBC:
“Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, when asked to quantify the relative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere by human and natural causes, stated that 7 gigatons (billion tons) are emitted each year by human activity while only 1 gigaton comes from natural sources such as the oceans. This absurd and incredible statement can, in my opinion, only have been made to enable widespred fraud by the Royal Society, whose members have financial investments in “green technology” (windmills, carbon capture, etc.) and the BBC (pension fund investments in the same areas). I demand that the BBC rectify this outrageous state of affairs, and apologise to the public, who pay for this rubbish.”
If I ever get a reply I will post it (but don’t hold your breath!)
It hasn’t snowed in the UK or at least south of the border in January – is this due to global warming?
Collin Maessen says that more snow means global warming.
Maessen is a tool of the CAGW industry. He needs to read what Stephen Schneider wrote 35 years ago:
Schneider was flat wrong, as any temperature graph from the ’70’s shows.
It’s always the same bogus chattering coming from self-serving riders on the climate scam gravy train. Any one of them could simply change “cooling” to “warming” in Schneider’s statement and claim to be right.
The fact that Maessen has bought into their scam tells us all we need to know about Maessen’s credulity. The Elmer Gantrys of the world always find plenty of credulous followers. The Soviets called them “useful idiots.”
Smokey says:
January 30, 2011 at 8:58 am
“Nurse is either ignorant of the facts, or he lied outright. Unless someone can point out a third possibility?”
Actually it was the NASA scientist who lied.
I watched part of the program but missed the significance of those statements about the carbon cycle. Fortunately, I recorded it and I’ve taken another look.
I’m utterly astounded. Here we have a NASA scientist lying on an almost biblical scale. I think serious complaints should be lodged with NASA and the BBC. I’ve made a transcript:
Scientist: “We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground.We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn, and that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide, about 7 gigatons per year right now.
Natural causes can only produce through volcanoes popping off and things like that and coming out of the ocean, only about 1 gigaton per year, so there’s just no question that human activities is producing a massively large proportion of carbon dioxide”.
Nurse: “So 7 times more?”
Scientist: “That’s right”.
Nurse: ” I mean why do some say that isn’t the case?”
Scientist: “I, I dont know….”
So, the scientist is clearly stating that mankind emits 7 times more CO2 than nature. A quick check on Wickipedia gives these figures:
Mankind 5.5 Gt
Oceans 90 Gt
Soils 60 Gt
Vegetation 60.
So, on these figures nature emits nearly 40 times more than mankind. The scientist was exaggerating the proportion of human emissions by a factor of 280.
It is supremely ironic that Nurse says: ” I mean why do some say that isn’t the case?”
Apart from anything else, Nurse was clearly ignorant of the Carbon Cycle. He’s not a climate scientist, but what excuse does the NASA scientist have?
I would suggest to WUWT that you make an official complaint to NASA. I think a complaint to the BBC would also be in order.
Chris
Smokey, I said it’s consistent, not caused by. It’s hard to relate a single weather event to global warming.
To use an excerpt from a comment that hasn’t been approved yet:
This doesn’t mean that the current amount of snow wouldn’t be possible without global warming. But it [doesn’t]* provide evidence either that the planet isn’t warming. In the video I posted you can find all the details.
*Said “does” when I meant “doesn’t”.
I agree, the program devalued both its own credentials and that of the Royal Society.
Its not Science that’s under attack, it never was. It’s Grand Theory and Epistemology in general that Science is being prostituted to shore up.
Collin Maessen says:
“It’s hard to relate a single weather event to global warming.”
No, it’s easy. What you’re saying is no different than what these folks are saying.
I am not disputing either global warming or global cooling. I am disputing the claims that they are anything other than natural variability in action.
Chris Wright,
Apologies for not making my post clearer. Nurse deliberately used a NASA incompetent. So Nurse is responsible. Even if he had used the IPCC’s own numbers, he would have been on the right track: click
The crippling amount of expenditure that the UK government demands of its taxpayers to reduce CO2 emissions unnecessarily is eye watering (anyway it makes me weep). The BBC which receives its funding and income without much effort (just bung up the licence fee each year – a direct tax or charge to every viewer) in a similar way has no problem with its uncritical embrace of the bogus concept of global warming; after ball its only (somebody elses) money.
Collin Maessen says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:41 am
A single weather event. You mean like the entire northern hemisphere being covered with snow is a single weather event. You typed does when you wanted to say doesn’t. Your Fruedian slip is showing.
It is interesting that the warmists are moving the discussion immediately to evolution vs. creation. Must have contracted out the moving of the goal posts, as the game is favoring the skeptics. Weak.
Evanjones, you know I have a great deal of respect for you. Co2 follows temperature change. Water vapor is being ignored completely as the predominate “greenhouse” (a misleading term) gas. Co2’s effect, if any, is completely overwhelmed by factors like water vapor. There is much talk of troposphere warming, stratosphere cooling, but no one is looking at what effects the amount (or form taken) of water vapor is in these zones and what effect this may be having. The funding and focus has only been on Co2 !! My prediction is that Co2 will eventually be found to do nothing. It is a follower of variation and not a cause of it. Water and it’s various forms and effects, in varying concentrations are what needs to be understood, especially how it operates in the upper and midrange (even surface level) of the atmosphere. I look forward to your perspective on this.
Collin Maesen,
“And if it wasn’t anthropogenic we wouldn’t be seeing the changes in the infrared absorption patterns in the atmosphere we are currently seeing.”
Please elaborate on these changes in infrared absorption patterns we are currently seeing. (I presume you are not referring to the tropical mid troposphere hotspot.)
I watched the programme, and was waiting in vain for something I didn’t know to appear. It appears lots of statements containing scientific errors were broadcast by the Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, a great man.
Perhaps there was something obscuring his view of his standpoint on AGW, if he could see past his ego, he would see his feet are made of clay!
However, I did keep in mind that history is littered with the wreckage of scientific consensus, and it is quite historically usual for a president of the Royal Society to talk absolute rubbish.